Comments on ERO 019-2927…

Comments on ERO 019-2927

Proposed Changes to the regulation of development for the
protection of people and property from natural hazards in Ontario

The proposal is to streamline approvals under the Conservation Authorities Act to focus on natural hazards. Such streamlining should not lead to any reduction in the thoroughness of reviews and relaxing of safety standards. If anything, safety standards should be tightened to reflect the more hazardous conditions society will be facing as global warming intensifies.

The purpose of changing the definition of “watercourse” is not clear. Obviously when there is no flow, neither a “depression” nor a “channel having a bed and banks” are watercourses. However, both will convey flow and become large flow pathways under extreme downpours. Conservation Authorities are centres of expertise in water flow, shore stability, frequency and magnitude of rain and snow melt events, etc. and should continue to apply that expertize to protecting people and infrastructure to the benefit of Ontarians, without undue constraints from government.

Until the proposed update to the meaning of “other areas” is specified (the Consultation Guide suggests this be areas within 30m of all wetlands, but no rationale is provided), cannot support this. Similarly, the proposal to exempt certain activities from requiring a permit is very vague. Such unclear intentions should be written down and issued in draft form for review.

The proposal of “requiring conservation authorities to request any information … prior to confirmation of a complete application” is acceptable only if the conservation authority is allocated enough time to evaluate the proposal and assess the information needed to approve or deny the application. Constraining both this time and the ability to ask for additional information during reviews of complex situations may lead to incomplete assessments and unsafe development.

Limiting site-specific conditions that conservation authorities may attach to a permit to matters dealing with natural hazards and public safety, ignores the fact that in nature al things are interconnected. Altering riverfronts, beaches, water courses, etc., draining wetlands, paving surfaces, etc. can also impact the quantity and quality of groundwater sources, etc.

The proposal to create a tool that would provide the ability to exempt development authorized under the Planning Act from requiring a permit under the Conservation Authorities Act is also very vague and potentially concerning. This can easily lead to development that is unsafe being approved if non-experts in extreme weather events, flood and erosion prediction and control are given the authority to make decisions that result in life and death consequences for others.

Regulatory Proposal Consultation Guide

As mentioned above the Consultation Guide proposes to limit the term “other areas” to land within 30m of all wetlands. What is the rationale for 30m, and what is the definition of wetland – the existing one or the one proposed recently? Wetlands are part of the interconnected ecosystem that nature uses to store and release storm water to mitigate the effects of floods; provide habitat to other wildlife; contribute to groundwater recharge; attenuate and filter water contaminants; etc. The ongoing focus on degrading protections for wetlands is short-sighted and unwise. Absent from the proposed definition of “other lands” are other special interest ecosystems such as wildlife corridors and links between protected areas, habitat of threatened and endangered species, rare forest stands and other natural features.

The proposed definition of development activity does not include clearing of land (e.g. cutting down trees when other alternatives are available), diverting streams, draining wetlands, constructing roads and other infrastructure, etc. It should, to document the overall change to the ecosystem of the proposed activity.

The streamlining of approvals for new well installations should not eliminate the need to ensure the new well does not become a conduit for the contamination of the underlying aquifer and nearby wells (e.g. the Walkerton well water contamination.)